"TOP 10 REASONS Why We Know the Earth is Round" Debunked

Quote from: Garbage on March 17, 2016, 03:48:24 PM

Well what should one use?

Perhaps accepted science would be a start?

If you used accepted science then you should be a round earther.

Quote from: jroa on March 17, 2016, 03:55:38 PM

Quote from: Garbage on March 17, 2016, 03:48:24 PM

Well what should one use?

Perhaps accepted science would be a start?

If you used accepted science then you should be a round earther.

I said it would be a start.  I did not say you had to stop there. 

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on March 17, 2016, 07:25:10 PM

Quote from: jroa on March 17, 2016, 03:55:38 PM

Quote from: Garbage on March 17, 2016, 03:48:24 PM

Well what should one use?

Perhaps accepted science would be a start?

If you used accepted science then you should be a round earther.

I said it would be a start.  I did not say you had to stop there. 

There you go again. You can't explain it, because you probably dont know anything about physics to begin with. So you pick at select parts of comments and try to write something witty.
It's funny, I came here because I was reminded by a Vsauce video that this place existed. I did a paper on you guys 7 years ago in high school when we had to write about pseudo science. These are all the traits of pseudo science, you dont actually answer counter arguments, and you make things up as you go along to fit your world view. I got an A, so I guess thanks for existing, and good on you for being just as stuck as you were then.

Quote from: jroa on March 17, 2016, 07:28:25 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on March 17, 2016, 07:25:10 PM

Quote from: jroa on March 17, 2016, 03:55:38 PM

Quote from: Garbage on March 17, 2016, 03:48:24 PM

Well what should one use?

Perhaps accepted science would be a start?

If you used accepted science then you should be a round earther.

I said it would be a start.  I did not say you had to stop there. 

There you go again. You can't explain it, because you probably dont know anything about physics to begin with. So you pick at select parts of comments and try to write something witty.
It's funny, I came here because I was reminded by a Vsauce video that this place existed. I did a paper on you guys 7 years ago in high school when we had to write about pseudo science. These are all the traits of pseudo science, you dont actually answer counter arguments, and you make things up as you go along to fit your world view. I got an A, so I guess thanks for existing, and good on you for being just as stuck as you were then.

I have only been here since september of 2011.  It must be embarrassing for me to call you out on your 7 year claim.  In addition, you have only registered this month.  How many accounts do you have on the Flat Earth Society?  Did you know that alts are against the rules? 

jroa, do you not know what "you guys" means?

Quote from: Erland on February 21, 2016, 02:44:13 PM

Come on now... An object which is turned upside down does not change its shape, nor its size.

No one said Orion changed shape or size.  It simply changes orientation.  Please don't make things up.  It only makes you look foolish.

How exactly do you think you are going to convince someone if you are so dishonest?
It is fearly obvious why should the constelations change their apparent shape and size when they get closer to the horizon if the Earth is flat: for the same reason as the flocks of birds do.
Flat Earth Wiki explains that as either the laws of perspective stop working when the objects (the stars) are too far away (ridiculous, right?) or as there being some unknown optical phenomenum that makes it possible (If you draw a diagram you can clearly see that the refractions and reflections can't explain that).
The Round Earth theory explains this as the stars always being almost equally distant from us regardless of where we are on the Earth (They are millions of killometers away, while the diametter of the Earth is only 6400 killometers). And if you draw a diagram, you can see that this is a good explanation.
This is perhaps the most serious problem with the Flat Earth Theory, yet you refuse to address it.

Excellent job: trying to draw an actual diagram to see whether your beliefs are coherent.
The next step: stop being a fucking FE-er for God's sake!

I mean, now you really have no excuse for your assinity.

This whole site is filled with crazy people. Most of their "arguments" are just saying "Henry is assuming..." and blah blah blah.
Don't you people realize that it is physically impossible for something the size of the earth to be flat, it would just form into a sphere because of its own gravity.

This whole site is filled with crazy people. Most of their "arguments" are just saying "Henry is assuming..." and blah blah blah.
Don't you people realize that it is physically impossible for something the size of the earth to be flat, it would just form into a sphere because of its own gravity.

Don't you realize that it is physically impossible for every galaxy to be propelled away from each other for 14 billion years when gravity should be pulling them together?  Why is your magic better than mine? 

Like I said earlier, you guys apparently don't believe in science.

Like I said earlier, you guys apparently don't believe in science.

Wow, what a come back.  Are you like 12 years old?  If so, I will hold back on my debating skills. 

Quote from: George3 on March 23, 2016, 08:01:00 PM

This whole site is filled with crazy people. Most of their "arguments" are just saying "Henry is assuming..." and blah blah blah.
Don't you people realize that it is physically impossible for something the size of the earth to be flat, it would just form into a sphere because of its own gravity.

Don't you realize that it is physically impossible for every galaxy to be propelled away from each other for 14 billion years when gravity should be pulling them together?  Why is your magic better than mine? 

You admit yours is magic. But to answer your question, we have observation, experimentation and math backed by centuries of hard work and great minds.

Here we are on your post (98th so far on this thread) and you nor any other FET believer has posted any math, experimentation etc to bolster FET is correct.

What HAS been posted by FET is at best opinions based on guesses and hope and need to believe.

FET cannot even come up with a standard model for your claims.

E=MC² is voodoo

E=MC² is improperly applied

The sun is a spotlight

The sun is a ball

The Earth is disk

The Earth is square

The Earth is infinite

The Earth has an edge

The Earth's gravity is due to is huge mass

There is no gravity

Mass is gravity is just "magic"

"Gravity" is due to Universal Acceleration

E=MC² doesn't apply to Universal Acceleration

Universal Acceleration works because E=MC² explains time dilation

Math as in Trigonometry works but only on paper

Math as in Trigonometry works to give the altitude of the sun and moon.

RE maps are fake

FET say FE maps are not accurate when it comes to flight times ANYWHERE.

I can keep listing your contradictions all day but I have other things to do.

My point is I have not seen one post that has any math that works. Check that, I have not seen FET math of any kind, just belief and opinion.

Using assuming in most of those answers is a good start. There is no reason to believe the earth is different to any other celestial body in the solar system. It has formed in exactly the same way.

Why are galaxies not attracting each other? Well you know the universe is expanding. Further more a galaxy following another. The one Infront will be accelerating away faster than the one behind it due to expansion.

On a big scale where you have a Galaxy size object the expansion is more so than the gravitational force. unless they become close enough for gravity to overpower it.

One only has to ask how the earth formed in the first place with no gravitational force between atoms.

1. Other planets are round

According to Flat Earth Theory, the Earth and other planets are not really the same type of celestial body. To put it another way, which I'm sure everyone everywhere will take offense to, the Earth is different.

So... What is earth really?

We get this video a lot, so I thought I'd make an easily found thread debunking it. If a mod could sticky this that would be awesome.

1. Other planets are round

According to Flat Earth Theory, the Earth and other planets are not really the same type of celestial body. To put it another way, which I'm sure everyone everywhere will take offense to, the Earth is different.



2. Time Zones

This is the first of a trend in this video, in which Henry (the host of MinutePhysics, for those not subscribed) assumes that the Flat Earth is exactly the same as the Round Earth in every way except for shape. The sun works in a manner similar to a spotlight in Flat Earth Theory, which is why time zones exist. When the Sun isn't pointing overhead, it's nighttime.

3. The Coriolis Effect

Once again, Henry is making assumptions. There are a few differing opinions about this, as Flat Earth Theory is not a unified theory. Some people doubt the existence of Coriolis as anything more than a theorized force, as the evidence for it is largely contrived. Others have various explanations for it, such as the Shadow of the Aetheric Wind theorized by myself.

4. Triangles

This is little more than conjecture. It is literally impossible to perform this experiment on the scale required.

5. The Sun

Henry is assuming again. The Sun's apparent movement is caused by the Sun actually moving. As for Eratosthenes's famous experiment to measure the diameter of the Earth, that assumes a Round Earth. If we assume a Flat Earth, the same experiment gives us the distance to the Sun.

6. Stars Change

Another assumption. This time, he's assuming that FE geography is just a Mercator map. It's not. The Earth is a disk centered around the North Pole, which would provide the same effect.

7. Magellan

Again, the Earth isn't in the shape of a Mercator map. That would be silly. Magellan and many others simply made a circle around the disk of the Earth.

8. The Horizon

This is just a perspective effect. First of all, apparently large waves will obscure apparently small objects. Therefore, looking out long distances over water you will of course be unable to see land on the other side. In addition, refraction has an effect. Some flat Earthers theorize an electromagnetic acceleration which appears to bend light upward.

9. Eclipses

Eclipses are caused by the sun going behind the moon, or vice versa. It's that simple. Once again, Henry is assuming everything is exactly the same.

10. Photographic Evidence

Most photographic evidence actually demonstrates what we would expect to see on a disk shaped, flat Earth: a circle with little to no apparent curvature. Add in camera distortion, and that's our explanation for low Earth photos. As for photos like the famous Blue Marble, that the space agencies of the World are involved in a conspiracy is depressingly obvious if you look at the evidence.

____

I'd appreciate it if you didn't respond to this thread, or if a mod locked it. It's not up for discussion. This is just to let newcomers know that they can't 'destroy FES with a single video' as so many hope to. It's not that easy. Sorry.

Seriously, this isn't a debate thread. If you want to debate it, feel free to make a new thread. I'm not responding to questions or concerns in this one.

Seems legit

For some reason these guys thought this was a good thread to link: http://futurism.com/facts-obvious/

"9. Eclipses: Eclipses are caused by the sun going behind the moon, or vice versa. It's that simple. Once again, Henry is assuming everything is exactly the same..."

I'd just like to point out that while a Solar eclipse (i.e. "the sun going behind the moon," as you put it) may be somewhat plausible on a flat earth, the moon going behind the sun would be irrelevant; it wouldn't have an eclipsing effect. The sun would simply conceal the moon temporarily. Instead, for a Lunar eclipse to occur, it would literally require the sun to temporarily disappear "off the face of the earth." It would have to sink below the disc and pass underneath it for the earth to cast it's shadow upon the moon. Just FYI, this has never happened throughout all history (as far as I'm aware!!). It has always been daytime somewhere and night time somewhere else. I think it's safe to say that the entire earth hasn't ever been plunged into complete total darkness throughout the duration of a Lunar eclipse... Not yet anyway lol

The Earth, according to NASA is nearly 8,000 miles in diameter and about 25,000 miles around.  So, the distance from the equator to the Center of The Earth should be about 4,000 miles as well. 
The distance from the North Pole to the Equator should be about 6,250 miles which is ¼ the circumference.
Let’s start with Ecuador located at the equator and rotate the earth east 1 degree.  To rotate the earth we have curvature in that 1 degree using Ecuador as the starting point.  By starting in Ecuador and going west, we will be traversing the Pacific Ocean for 6,250 miles.  My goal is to turn the earth 90 times 1 degree at a time.  I will not be using any complex formulas, just simple math, rotations at 1 degree each, rotating the earth for 90 rotations of 1 degree each.    After each one degree of rotation we would have traveled 70 miles. After 90 rotations we would have gone 6,300 miles.  Therefore what is the curvature of each rotation, keeping in mind after 90 rotations we are 4,000 miles lower than from where we started??  I am not discussing the Pythagoras theorem, only trying simple math…Thank You.
For every 70 miles you should be dropping 44 miles to get the 4,000 mile Radius of the earth give or take a few miles.

The Earth, according to NASA is nearly 8,000 miles in diameter and about 25,000 miles around.  So, the distance from the equator to the Center of The Earth should be about 4,000 miles as well. 
The distance from the North Pole to the Equator should be about 6,250 miles which is ¼ the circumference.

These numbers were established way before NASA or any space agency was created. You don't have to refer to NASA every time something spacy shows up.

The Earth, according to NASA is nearly 8,000 miles in diameter and about 25,000 miles around.  So, the distance from the equator to the Center of The Earth should be about 4,000 miles as well. 
The distance from the North Pole to the Equator should be about 6,250 miles which is ¼ the circumference.
Let’s start with Ecuador located at the equator and rotate the earth east 1 degree.  To rotate the earth we have curvature in that 1 degree using Ecuador as the starting point.  By starting in Ecuador and going west, we will be traversing the Pacific Ocean for 6,250 miles.  My goal is to turn the earth 90 times 1 degree at a time.  I will not be using any complex formulas, just simple math, rotations at 1 degree each, rotating the earth for 90 rotations of 1 degree each.    After each one degree of rotation we would have traveled 70 miles. After 90 rotations we would have gone 6,300 miles.  Therefore what is the curvature of each rotation, keeping in mind after 90 rotations we are 4,000 miles lower than from where we started??  I am not discussing the Pythagoras theorem, only trying simple math…Thank You.
For every 70 miles you should be dropping 44 miles to get the 4,000 mile Radius of the earth give or take a few miles.

The Earth, according to NASA is nearly 8,000 miles in diameter and about 25,000 miles around.  So, the distance from the equator to the Center of The Earth should be about 4,000 miles as well. 
The distance from the North Pole to the Equator should be about 6,250 miles which is ¼ the circumference.
Let’s start with Ecuador located at the equator and rotate the earth east 1 degree.  To rotate the earth we have curvature in that 1 degree using Ecuador as the starting point.  By starting in Ecuador and going west, we will be traversing the Pacific Ocean for 6,250 miles.  My goal is to turn the earth 90 times 1 degree at a time.  I will not be using any complex formulas, just simple math, rotations at 1 degree each, rotating the earth for 90 rotations of 1 degree each.    After each one degree of rotation we would have traveled 70 miles. After 90 rotations we would have gone 6,300 miles.  Therefore what is the curvature of each rotation, keeping in mind after 90 rotations we are 4,000 miles lower than from where we started??  I am not discussing the Pythagoras theorem, only trying simple math…Thank You.
For every 70 miles you should be dropping 44 miles to get the 4,000 mile Radius of the earth give or take a few miles.

I would recheck your math.  Assuming you are observing from directly on the ground and looking at something 70 miles away about .6 miles will be obscured by the horizon. This does not take into account refraction.

It would help if you post your calculations.

Here is what I used, actually to save time I just used an app:



I know you said you did not want to use something complicated, but I learned to use the Pythagorean theorem in a high school math class.

I have used it from time to time in my career and when sailing for fun trying to predict when I should be able to see something like the top of a building or mountain.  I have gotten rather accurate results consistently.

I think the problem with your reasoning is you thinking you will be lower somehow.  Which is true for a plane.  Untrue for a sphere. When standing on a smooth sphere the ground is always lower going away from you.

Also what Brouwer said.  NASA did not come up with the distances, they only take part in refining and getting more accurate measurements.  You need to blame people like the thousands of geodetic surveyors that began mapping the Earth about 2,000 years ago.
The Greeks and astronomers throughout history should be held accountable also.

You say the Flat Earth Theory is not unified theory.
Maybe this will help "unifying it".

Perspective and vanishing point should work the same in all directions,
no matter if the Sun is seen from north, south, east, west, bottom, top...
Right? Unless it changes as convenient.
Or Sun has reflector, like flashlight.

Now print Flat Earth Map and see how it works in real life.

Mark Cape Town.
March 21st, Sun is directly over Equator the whole day.
Noon. Sun is above Kampala, Uganda, and well seen from the Cape Town.
Now, where was the Sun 5 hours ago, at 7 am?
Somewhere nearly above Sumatra.
Still very well seen from Cape Town.
Draw circle around the 7 am Sun through Cape Town.
Everyone within circle should see the Sun well, because it is closer
than perspective and vanishing point effects can hide it.
Including Canada and half of USA.
In real life they are in the middle of the night.
Flat Earth Model doesn't reflect reality.

Again.
BAhia Bustamante, Argentina, 5 pm.
Where's the Sun? Somewhere over Pacific, 75 degrees to
the west from Argentina, above the Equator.
Draw circle around the Sun through Bahia Bustamante.
It will show that Sun at the moment should be well
visible from the whole Europe, Most of Asia, and small
part of North Africa.
In real life they are in deep night.

Try with Melbourne, 5pm. North America should have sunlight.
Same thing. Night.
Flat Earth model again doesn't reflest the real life.

Unless "our spotlight" has that reflector speciffically shaped.
Some wandering star long time ago hit it and dented it from
the side facing north pole.

~~~~~

Perspective again. Appearance of the objects shrinking with distance.

If the Earth is flat, the following will be correct.

Let's go back to our Bahia Bustamante.
Moment of observation: noon, march 21st, equinox, Sun directly over the Equator.
From Bahia Bustamante Sun is seen above the horizon by 45 degrees north.
From Wesley, Maine, USA Sun is seen above the horizon by 45 degrees south.
They are 6220 miles apart.
Simple Pythagorean triangle, with hypotenuse from Wesley to Bahia Bustamante,
gives distance from Sun to Earth's surface 3110 miles.
Legs of the triangle are roughly 4400 miles each.
At that moment Sun is almost directly above Sao Gabriel de Cachoeira, Brazil.

So, 3110 miles from Sao Gabriel de Cachoeira (directly above head),
Sun there has angular diamter of 0.5 degrees.
Again, simple calculation gives the diameter of the Sun as 27 miles.
(Simplified for small angles, can be calculated as 3110 * tan (0.5 deg), and
actually it is 2 * 3110 * tan (0.25 deg). Both give roughly the same 27.14 miles. )

Now, what should be angular diameter of the Sun seen from Wesley, ME,
and from Bahia Bustamante?
It should be Arctan (27 / 4400) = 0.35 degrees. (Again simplified for small angles.)

In real life it is still 0.5 degrees, not 0.35.

At 5 pm, Flat Earth map shows the Sun roughly 9500 miles from Bahia Bustamante
in horizontal direction. And it is 3000 miles above the horizontal.
It makes hypotenuse 9900 miles long.

At the distance of 9900 miles, the Sun as big as 27 miles should have
angular diameter of 0.156 degrees.

In reality it doesn't.

In real life the Sun still has 0.5 degrees. Does it make Sun now 86 miles in diameter?
In that case what should be its angular diameter from San Francisco, California? 1.12 degrees.

Or even better, from the ship directly below it? 1.58 degrees. More than tripple the actual size.
We all know how hot is the Sun in summer.
Tripple diameter makes circle 9 times bigger. Our ship would burn in flames.

Now print Flat Earth Map and see how it works in real life.

Mark Cape Town.
March 21st, Sun is directly over Equator the whole day.
Noon. Sun is above Kampala, Uganda, and well seen from the Cape Town.
Now, where was the Sun 5 hours ago, at 7 am?
Somewhere nearly above Sumatra.
Still very well seen from Cape Town.
Draw circle around the 7 am Sun through Cape Town.
Everyone within circle should see the Sun well, because it is closer
than perspective and vanishing point effects can hide it.
Including Canada and half of USA.
In real life they are in the middle of the night.
Flat Earth Model doesn't reflect reality.

I use a very similar argument but start at astronomical Sunrise at your current location.

On the RE model the Earth average circumference is ~24,901 mi so, on a Round Earth at 1/4 that distance (6225.25 miles) away we expect to find the Sun pretty much directly overhead (this is the subsolar point: http://www.skymarvels.com/infopages/vids/Earth%20-%20Sub-solar%20Point%20001.htm).   Ok so far.  Both FE and RE's will agree this is where the Sun is overhead.

Now find the half-way point which is 3112.625 miles from both points, which would also be 45° around on the RE model.  Both FE and RE should agree so far (because I hear ALL THE TIME how for the Equinox at 45° latitude the sun is at 45° but is also directly over the equator thus "proving" a nearby sun [and IF the ground is flat it would] -- this is the same distance and everything but we don't need to wait for the Equinox, you can do this any day you want).

So let's do a quick review:

At the subsolar point the Sun is at 90° - directly overhead
At the mid-point the Sun is at 45° - and we are 3112.625 from the subsolar point (our distance or 'd')

So far so good but now we have a problem.  Remember where started?  The sun is on our horizon...



And by the SAME simple geometry that says when our distance equals our height then our slope will be 1 (giving us our angle of 45°) then if we double that distance the slope would only be cut in HALF.  It's NOTHING but division by 2 because SLOPE = RISE / RUN  -- if you double the RUN you've divided it by two.  It doesn't matter what 'h' is, it doesn't matter what 'd' is.  We're simply twice as far away.

Which means our angle SHOULD be about 26°30' on a Flat Earth but we already know it's all the way down on our horizon.  So you have a HUGE error that no amount of refraction or made up atmospheric lensing or perspective can account for.

Flat Earth is off by 15 *percent* of the arc of the sky and this doesn't require math to figure out -- you can just look at it and see it's WRONG.  That's what Flat Earthers like right?

I explore this is more depth here: http://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2016/07/simple-proof-for-convexity-of-earth.html

We get this video a lot, so I thought I'd make an easily found thread debunking it. If a mod could sticky this that would be awesome.

"Debunking" by use of "cherry picking".

1. Other planets are round

According to Flat Earth Theory, the Earth and other planets are not really the same type of celestial body. To put it another way, which I'm sure everyone everywhere will take offense to, the Earth is different.

The Earth is not different. Desire to make it different will come up with claim
which no one is even trying to prove. We were expected to take it as "granted".

2. Time Zones

This is the first of a trend in this video, in which Henry (the host of MinutePhysics, for those not subscribed) assumes that the Flat Earth is exactly the same as the Round Earth in every way except for shape. The sun works in a manner similar to a spotlight in Flat Earth Theory, which is why time zones exist. When the Sun isn't pointing overhead, it's nighttime.

If Sun is disc it would be seen as ellipse from directly below, and as ellipse from aside.
So, it is not disc.

If Sun is sphere, then there's no way to force free people to believe it is "spotlight".
If people aren't free, you can force them to "believe" anything.

3. The Coriolis Effect

Once again, Henry is making assumptions. There are a few differing opinions about this, as Flat Earth Theory is not a unified theory. Some people doubt the existence of Coriolis as anything more than a theorized force, as the evidence for it is largely contrived. Others have various explanations for it, such as the Shadow of the Aetheric Wind theorized by myself.

Based on opinions, there are many doubts in anything.
Based on opinions you can form BELIEFS.
Based on evidence you can gain KNOWLEDGE.
Coriolis effect is measured, not formed by opinions.

4. Triangles

This is little more than conjecture. It is literally impossible to perform this experiment on the scale required.

Triangles are used in Geodesy, measurements were made all over the globe,
errors in measuring were calculated.
Google for "History of Geodesy", and for "Geodesical mission in Peru".

5. The Sun

Henry is assuming again. The Sun's apparent movement is caused by the Sun actually moving. As for Eratosthenes's famous experiment to measure the diameter of the Earth, that assumes a Round Earth. If we assume a Flat Earth, the same experiment gives us the distance to the Sun.

The same experiment on Flat Earth varies greatly with change in latitude where
are you measuring from. On globe all latitudes give the same result.
So, disc model doesn't work for lack of consistency.
Globe model works.

6. Stars Change

Another assumption. This time, he's assuming that FE geography is just a Mercator map. It's not. The Earth is a disk centered around the North Pole, which would provide the same effect.

The same effect is impossible to provide, that's why some Flat Earthers are
trying to invent some weird optics and "anti-crepuscular geometry".
Stars constellations are different in northern and southern hemisphere.
Star constellations are different in summer and winter midnight.
Ever heard of "Summer Triangle" and "Winter Hexagon"?

7. Magellan

Again, the Earth isn't in the shape of a Mercator map. That would be silly. Magellan and many others simply made a circle around the disk of the Earth.

The Flat Earth must have same positions of sub-solar points in same moments
when and where Globe Earth has them.
Also, ground speed of sub-solar point must be the same.
So, the part of the map between Tropic of Cancer and Tropic of Capricorn must be
the same. And that part of map fits on spherical surface. On flat surface must
be heavily distorted.
Rest of the map gets added by triangulation. Also fits globe, doesn't fit disc.

8. The Horizon

This is just a perspective effect. First of all, apparently large waves will obscure apparently small objects. Therefore, looking out long distances over water you will of course be unable to see land on the other side. In addition, refraction has an effect. Some flat Earthers theorize an electromagnetic acceleration which appears to bend light upward.

Sun sinks behind horizon.
Horizon casts shadow that slowly crawls uphil on mouintain side BEHIND YOU.
If Sun is still 3000 miles above, how high those waves have to be?
If "perspective" is the case, is it lagging?
Eating Sun slowly from bottom, while preserving horizontal apparent size?
If the Sun is still 3000 miles high, then the bottom is closer to us than the top.
Top should be "eaten by perspective" first.

9. Eclipses

Eclipses are caused by the sun going behind the moon, or vice versa. It's that simple. Once again, Henry is assuming everything is exactly the same.

Lunar eclipse happens when Sun is on one side and Moon on other side.
So, Moon is hiding behind Earth, not behind Sun.

10. Photographic Evidence

Most photographic evidence actually demonstrates what we would expect to see on a disk shaped, flat Earth: a circle with little to no apparent curvature. Add in camera distortion, and that's our explanation for low Earth photos. As for photos like the famous Blue Marble, that the space agencies of the World are involved in a conspiracy is depressingly obvious if you look at the evidence.

Plato, Aristotle, Archimedes, Eratosthenes, Ptolemy, Al-Biruni, ...
proved the Earth is Globe before photographic evidence.
Their proofs were well documented, and then people put it on the Internet.
Desire to discredit any photo from space, even if you succeed, won't flatten the Earth.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't respond to this thread, or if a mod locked it. It's not up for discussion. This is just to let newcomers know that they can't 'destroy FES with a single video' as so many hope to. It's not that easy. Sorry.

Seriously, this isn't a debate thread. If you want to debate it, feel free to make a new thread. I'm not responding to questions or concerns in this one.

This thread required response. "Debunks" had to be exposed.

Quote from: George3 on March 23, 2016, 08:31:50 PM

Like I said earlier, you guys apparently don't believe in science.

Wow, what a come back.  Are you like 12 years old?  If so, I will hold back on my debating skills.

Folks,

I am new to the Forum, and eager to learn.  I've been an avid student of revisionist history for years, but was recently introduced to the very plausible possibility of a Flat, and immovable Earth.  But my basic question is this:  Who benefits from the conspiracy to make people the Earth is spinning, wobbling, careening sphere rather than a flat, immovable plane?  I realize one answer is the creeps at NASA.  But the conspiracy is older than that.  So, help me please to understand:  Cui Bono?

I don't know, stickying this might make Thork angry.

You really dont know if its round or not, you never tested it bounderies or limmits or its edge, you never even been to the moon to begin with. You use a telescope watch the moon at night but none of the bilion satelites we have on stratosphere cross through out my scope you lying pieceses of shit!

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on April 13, 2013, 07:03:37 PM

I don't know, stickying this might make Thork angry.

You really dont know if its round or not, you never tested it bounderies or limmits or its edge, you never even been to the moon to begin with. You use a telescope watch the moon at night but none of the bilion satelites we have on stratosphere cross through out my scope you lying pieceses of shit!

Near the equator, the stratosphere starts at 18 km (59,000 ft; 11 mi);
at mid latitudes, it starts at 10–13 km (33,000–43,000 ft; 6.2–8.1 mi) and ends at 50 km (160,000 ft; 31 mi);
at the poles, it starts at about 8 km (26,000 ft; 5.0 mi).

For example, geostationary satellites for commercial TV channels are at 22 300 miles above equator sea level.

Satellite sizes are from few inches to few yards.
Do you see a fly on the other side of football field?
Do you see football field from, say, ONLY 20 miles?

Sputnik was 23 inches in diameter.
Could you see GMC Sierra front wheel from 22 300 miles through your telescope?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on April 13, 2013, 07:03:37 PM

I don't know, stickying this might make Thork angry.

You really dont know if its round or not, you never tested it bounderies or limmits or its edge, you never even been to the moon to begin with. You use a telescope watch the moon at night but none of the bilion satelites we have on stratosphere cross through out my scope you lying pieceses of shit!

You actually think you can see something the size of a refrigerator, that is thousands of miles away, through a telescope? The only thing you have between your ears is SHIT.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on April 13, 2013, 07:03:37 PM

I don't know, stickying this might make Thork angry.

You really dont know if its round or not, you never tested it bounderies or limmits or its edge, you never even been to the moon to begin with. You use a telescope watch the moon at night but none of the bilion satelites we have on stratosphere cross through out my scope you lying pieceses of shit!

Field of view at Low Earth Orbit Altitudes plays huge role. Now say  the Sat is the size of an SUV. That SUV is doing 17,500 MPH   or about 5 miles per second. Even with the moon as a backdrop, the SUV passes in and out of view in the blink of an eye.

Ok. Soo serious question. If the corryelous effect is in fact causeing bullet and or slash target to rise or drop because of rotation of the heliocentric model. Well under that understanding if i make a shot twards north or south on the quote  unquote equator then i should hypotheticaly have to compensate like 100 ft to 200 ft the left of right to make the shot on a 1 mile shot or more. I would realy like an actual fact based response with at least one reference point. Perferably not some back yard chump that could be bribbed 10 g`S to be a coconspirators. So a renoun sciencetist should not be to hard or too much to ask for._. After all you are suppost to be defending a scientific fact we teach children. 

Please stop asking the same unintelligible questions in multiple threads.  It is considered to be spamming and is a banable offense.